Knowledge Center

Lessons That Planners Can Learn From Celebrity Estate
Battles

The lessons learned from the difficulties faced by
celebrity estates are a reminder for estate planners to stop and
consider the impact that thoughtful planning can have on the lives
of those whom estate practitioners serve.

Author: JASON S.
ORNDUFF AND LAUREN J. WOLVEN, ATTORNEYS

JASON S. ORNDUFF is a partner in the Private Client practice
group at the law firm of Thompson Coburn Fagel Haber in Chicago.
His practice focuses on the legal aspects of wealth transfer to the
next generation, including estate planning, estate and trust
administration, and transfer taxes. LAUREN J. WOLVEN is the
Regional Trust Head with the Chicago office of Brown Brothers
Harriman Trust Company, N.A., where she manages fiduciary and
wealth management advisory services for the Midwest region. The
authors have previously written and lectured on estate
planning.

[pg. 3]

It is surprising that those best
situated to put their affairs in order-the rich and famous-often
pay so little attention to the details of their lives. The last
decade, in particular, has seen our nation's headlines littered
with articles about estate battles. Some of those most frequently
covered in the media include James Brown, Brooke Astor and, of
course, Anna Nicole Smith (aka Vickie Lynn Marshall).

Is it really that these deceased
celebrities (or their advisors) have done such a poor job, or
rather, does the decedent's fame cause the media to turn these
personal affairs into a publicity circus? As the dual-edged sword
that is the Internet makes locating celebrity wills and the
surrounding stories so easy, we decided to take a closer look at
the estates of the rich and famous.

With the mention of the Internet
must come a disclaimer. While we have spent substantial time in an
effort to convey the facts as accurately as possible, we are only
as good as our sources. Much of the color commentary was obtained
from popular news sources, and we cannot promise that the stories
were not embellished for dramatic effect!

Due to the nature of the topic of
this article, it seemed appropriate to search for a famous
quotation to start our analysis. There were too many perfect ones
to select just one, so we have listed a few of our favorites, which
we feel approach the proper themes for this discussion.

When I pass, speak freely of my shortcomings and my flaws.
Learn from them, for I'll have no ego to injure. -AARON MCGRUDER,
cartoonist Boondocks

To die will be an awfully big adventure.-J.M. BARRIE, in Peter
Pan

A man should not leave this earth with unfinished business. He
should live each day as if it was [sic] a pre-flight check. He
should ask each morning, am I prepared to lift-off?-DIANE FROLOV
and ANDREW SCHNEIDER, Northern Exposure, All Is Vanity, 1991

Although we approach this topic
with a sense of humor, we recognize that any laughs come at the
expense of someone's death. We are respectful of those who are
departed and the loss their friends and family experience, and seek
only to perform an intellectual analysis to avoid repeating the
past. As

[pg. 4]

George Bernard Shaw is credited
with saying:

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any
more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.

Ironically, George Bernard Shaw,
the famous author and playwright, left his own estate battle upon
his death in 1950. Apparently, Shaw was not fond of the erratic
variations present in English spelling. Upon his death, he left
£367,233 13s to fund the creation of a phonemic alphabet for the
English language. The funding initially was insufficient, but that
changed when the estate began to earn royalties from My Fair
Lady(adapted from Shaw's Pygmalion). According to Wikipedia,
1 "the Public Trustee found grounds to challenge the will
as being badly worded. In the end an out-of-court settlement
granted only £8600 for promoting the new alphabet, which is now
called the Shavian alphabet."

Oops! You mean I forgot part of the
will?

Vickie Lynn Marshall's will
currently is the most notorious demonstration of failure to address
important issues in a testamentary document. The problematic
language of Vickie Lynn's will appears in Article I of the document
following the recitation that she has only one child, Daniel. In a
widely publicized tragedy, Daniel predeceased Vickie Lynn by five
months. The language that creates controversy in the probate of
Vickie Lynn's will reads as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this Will, I have
intentionally omitted to provide for my spouse and other heirs,
including future spouses and children and other descendants now
living and those hereafter born or adopted, as well as existing and
future stepchildren and foster children.

Because the provision governing
disposition of the estate provided only that the residue be held in
trust for her "child" without providing any alternatives, Vickie
Lynn's estate plan has a gaping hole. Making the omission worse is
the fact that later portions of the will refer to "children,"
exacerbating the confusion. For example, the single paragraph that
describes the trust to be held for her child by Howard Stern, Esq.
states: "to hold in trust for my child under such terms as he and a
court of competent jurisdiction may declare, such that my children
are distributed sufficient sums for the health, education, and
support according to their accustomed manner of living...."

Fortunately, a Los Angeles court
remedied the omission by recently declaring that Dannielynn Hope,
Vickie Lynn's infant daughter, is the sole heir to her estate.
Dannielynn's inheritance will be placed in a trust with her father,
Larry Birkhead, and Vickie Lynn's former attorney, Howard Stern, as
the co-trustees.

Courts are instructed to look first
at the plain language of a will or trust document to determine the
testator/grantor's intent from the words of the instrument. When
attorneys are not careful to adapt boilerplate language to
specially crafted terms of the dispositive provisions of a
document, ambiguities and holes such as the one in Vickie Lynn's
estate are the unfortunate result.

Lessons learned from Vickie
Lynn.

(1) Always proofread the whole document you have drafted, and
not just the portions you have changed. Make sure the boilerplate
is consistent with the rest of the document.

(2) Do not draft rigid documents. Had Vickie Lynn's will simply
contemplated that her children would be Daniel and any other
children born to her or adopted by her after the date of the will,
some of the courtroom drama following her death would have been
avoided.

(3) Keep in touch with your clients and make sure they update
their estate plans. Aside from being a good business practice in
general, staying regularly connected to clients serves their best
interests. Periodically check in and find out whether there is a
new child, a change in marital status, etc. Encourage clients to
update their documents because having an outdated estate plan
sometimes can be worse than having no plan at all.

Short isn't always so sweet

Chief Justice Warren Burger is one
of the more famous members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Known for
authoring opinions such as Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education
2 and Bob Jones Univ. v. United States,
3 Burger is considered one of the finer legal minds to
occupy a seat on the Supreme Court. Unlike Supreme Court opinions,
however, Chief Justice Burger's will was incredibly short. The will
read as follows:

I hereby make and declare the following to be my last
will and testament.

3. I designate and appoint as executors of this will,
Wade A. Burger and J. Michael Luttig.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand to this
my Last Will and Testament this 9th day of
June, 1994.

[pg. 6]

Many critics have cited the Chief
Justice's will as an example of bad drafting, though that
conclusion is not entirely fair. It may be that the Chief Justice
was familiar with the statutes of the applicable jurisdiction and
found the default rules regarding payment of taxes and the
authority granted to the executors perfectly acceptable. News
reports, however, indicate that Chief Justice Burger's failure to
elaborate specifically on the tax allocations and fiduciary powers
cost the estate thousands of dollars that otherwise could have been
saved for his legatees.

Lessons learned from Chief
Justice Burger.

(1) Even talented attorneys should have their estate planning
documents reviewed by a competent and knowledgeable estate planner.
If the latter describes you, get one of your peers to give your
plan a quick proofread.

(2) Outlining how taxes are to be paid and expressly providing
a grant of powers to the fiduciary probably are good ideas. If the
statutory defaults are acceptable and are intended to be applied
without modification, it may be worthwhile to mention that
intention in the will to avoid confusion and conclusions by third
parties that a document is insufficient or poorly drafted.

(3) Revocable trusts are useful. The privacy they offer may
help prevent famous from becoming infamous.

Teach your children well

Those who are famous often become
so because they are rich. There have been numerous books written on
transitioning wealth to children, and the estate battles of the
wealthy are often a result of failure of a decedent to properly
prepare the next generation to receive an inheritance. Henrietta
("Hetty") Green is a prime example of failure to properly educate
the next generation.

Hetty Green was born in New
Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1834, into a family of prosperous
whalers. On her father's death in 1864, Hetty inherited the vast
sum of $7.5 million. She married three years later and made her
husband (who had wealth of his own) sign what amounts to a
pre-nuptial agreement. Preserving the family wealth was important
to Hetty. She managed her own finances carefully, investing in
Civil War bonds when no one else would, and then later in the debt
securities of railroads. She more than held her own in a very
male-dominated world of Wall Street, and when she died in 1916 she
left an estate valued somewhere between $100-$200 million, or about
$2-$4 billion in today's currency.

While the numbers might make it
seem that Hetty was good with money, a case can be made for the
opposite conclusion. Throughout her life, Hetty refused to pay for
either heat or hot water in her homes. Every extant picture of
Green shows her in a black dress, because it did not have to be
laundered as often. Her oldest son Ned fell and broke his leg as a
child, and, rather than take him to the hospital, Hetty set the leg
herself in her kitchen. Poor Ned developed gangrene and lost his
leg soon afterward.

Hetty refused to live in Manhattan
because the real estate there was too expensive. Instead, she spent
her life in apartments in Hoboken and Brooklyn Heights. In her old
age, she refused a hernia operation because it cost $150, and that
decision may have hastened her death. Hetty's miserly ways earned
her the title "The Witch of Wall Street," and no less an authority
than theGuinness Book of World Recordslists her as the greatest
miser of all time. Not quite the legacy we would want for ourselves
or our children, and not quite the balance that being good with
money (including understanding how to spend it) requires.

Lesson learned from Hetty
Green. It would be hard to put the lesson more eloquently
than in the words of Henry Ford, fromMy Life and Work:

We teach children to save their money. As an attempt to
counteract thoughtless and selfish expenditure, that has value. But
it is not positive; it does not lead the child into the safe and
useful avenues of self-expression or self-expenditure. To teach a
child to invest and use is better than to teach him to
save.

Didn't he readCinderella?

Marvin Middlemark, like Hetty
Green, was good at accumulating wealth, but he was Hetty's polar
opposite when it came to spending money. As the inventor of the
"rabbit ears" television antenna, Middlemark lived a life of exotic
expenditure, including maintenance of a chimpanzee that sometimes
became intoxicated at his parties (it is rumored the chimp liked to
polish off unfinished beverages left by unsuspecting guests) or
answered Middlemark's door for guests.

When Marvin Middlemark died in
1989, he left an estate worth approximately $5 million and a
straightforward, and by all accounts, competently drafted and
uncontested will. The problem was not his planning documents, but
rather, his legatees.

Marvin Middlemark's survivors
included his widow, her son from a previous marriage, Richard
Middlemark (who used the surname, but was never adopted by Marvin),
and Marvin's son, Martin Mittelmark (using the original spelling of
the last name). The newspapers reported

[pg. 8]

that the estate was simple and
under usual circumstances might have been divided up in less than a
year. Due to Marvin Middlemark appointing Richard and Martin as
co-executors, however, circumstances were anything but usual.

In addition to allegations that the
widow threw coffee in Martin's face, tried to choke him, planted
guns and drugs in Martin's car, and deliberately stalled the
estate, the widow engaged in on again, off again negotiations to
purchase the residence from the estate. OneNew York Timesreporter
noted that there was difficulty selling the house because the
widow's eight yipping dogs repelled brokers. That same reporter
also noted that the house may not have sold due to an infestation
of rats (attracted by animal feed from Middlemark's collection of
pets and the shelter provided by discarded tennis balls littering
the property).

In the vein ofGoodfellas, Martin
received death threats involving engraved shotgun shells and
mysterious menacing men driving Cadillacs. Even Martin's attorneys
received death threats, and both of them reportedly increased their
life insurance!

The ultimate showdown came when
Richard pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges to avoid his trial on
felony perjury and other charges. Richard had, it seems, bribed a
former family caretaker to recant a prior affidavit alleging that
Richard and his mother were secretly selling off items of the
estate. A public official (executive assistant to the Supervisor of
New Hempstead), Richard lost his job and his co-fiduciary position,
and received a two-year jail sentence for his behavior.

Lessons learned from Marvin
Middlemark.

(1) Always protect children from the wicked stepmother. As much
as we all like to believe that there are good, loving bonds where
blood relationships and relationships by marriage intertwine,
healthy skepticism may serve clients best. Middlemark's estate
might have had fewer troubles if an independent party had been
named as the fiduciary.

(2) Specific directions regarding the disposition of real
estate, particularly where there are stepchildren involved, can be
helpful. Much of the dispute over Middlemark's estate appears to
have revolved around the proper disposition of the home or the sale
price to the widow. That issue could have been resolved easily if
it had been addressed specifically in the estate plan.

Dog is man's (or woman's) best
friend

Leona Helmsley was a real estate
investor whose awful behavior earned her the title "Queen of Mean."
She was also known for stating "We don't pay taxes. Only the little
people pay taxes." Apparently, even the big people get locked up,
as her disregard of the Internal Revenue Code landed her in prison
for tax evasion.

When Leona died in 2007, the major
newspapers across the country ran headlines about her dog. The
eight-year-old Maltese, Trouble, was left to the care of Leona's
brother with a $12 million trust fund to subsidize the care.
Headlines like "Top Dog" and "Lucky Dog" did not really do justice
to Leona's estate plan, however.

Her will is a thoughtful document
that leaves $12 million in trust for Trouble (reduced to $2 million
by the New York courts), but it also leaves substantial sums to her
brother and two of her four grandchildren. Each grandchild received
$5 million outright plus $5 million in trust. Leona's brother
received $5 million outright and $10 million in trust. The language
of Leona's will also clearly indicates that she had specific
reasons for disinheriting two of her grandchildren. Perhaps the
most unusual portion of the will is the one that revokes the trust
fund set aside for the two legatee grandchildren if they fail to
visit the grave of their deceased father each calendar year.

Of course, when anyone inherits
money, they are more likely to be sued. Trouble was no different,
and shortly after Leona's death, a former housekeeper was
threatening in the press to sue Trouble for several dog bites
earned by the housekeeper during her tenure at the Helmsley
home.

And what about the pets not owned
by Leona? That is exactly the question a news story asked following
the announcement of Trouble's luck. The attention brought to
Trouble by the inheritance also brought some focus to those animals
whose owners do not provide for them in their estate plans. These
pets may soon have no worries either, as Leona left a mission
statement directing use of her reported $5-$8 billion charitable
foundation for the care of dogs. It remains to be seen how the
courts will address this issue.

Lessons learned from Leona
Helmsley.

(1) With clear drafting, even unusual provisions in an estate
plan may be implemented according to the decedent's wishes.

(2) Providing for pets in an estate plan is not a bad idea, but
have regard for legal restrictions on the amount of funds. Pets
left without a care plan may be euthanized if there is nobody to
give them a home.

(3) Bequests may be used to draw attention to a charitable or
social cause.

[pg. 9]

Papa's got a brand new (wife?)

The Godfather of Soul, James Brown,
died on Christmas Day 2006, leaving behind a will that left the
bulk of his fortune to family trusts set up for the benefit of his
grandchildren and the "I Feel Good" Trust for the education of
needy children in Georgia and his home state of South Carolina.
James's acknowledged children have filed an action contesting the
will.

Complicating matters, however, is
the question of whether James was married at the time of his death.
James was married at least three times, to Velma Warren (1953-1969,
divorced), Deidre Jenkins (1970-1981, divorced), and Adrienne Louis
Rodriquez (1984-1996, predeceased him). From these and other
relationships, James had five sons, four daughters, eight
grandchildren and four great-grandchildren at the time of his
death.

There is some question, however, as
to whether or not James was actually married a fourth time, to Tomi
Rae Hynie. According to reports, James married Tomi in December
2001. It appears, though, that the marriage might not have been
valid on the basis that Tomi may still have been married to another
man, Javed Ahmed, a Pakistani national, whom Hynie claimed married
her for a green card in an immigration fraud. According to James's
attorney, Buddy Dallas, James was unaware of the marriage to Javed
at the time James married Tomi. When he later found out, James was
very angry. Tomi moved to annul her marriage from Javed and was
successful, but the annulment did not take place until April 2004.
No remarriage took place between Tomi and James after the
annulment, so it appears under South Carolina law that they were
not legally married. In legal filings in South Carolina, however,
Tomi has identified herself as the surviving spouse of James.

The first fight between Tomi and
James's family was over the burial. More than ten weeks after his
death, his children and Tomi finally decided on a temporary burial
spot, and James was buried in a crypt at the home of his daughter,
Deanna Brown Thomas. There has been high drama in this affair. Tomi
was legally barred from James's home following his death, even
though she was living there at the time of his death.

Marriage troubles are not the only
story in this estate. There is also the question of a five-year-old
son of James and Tomi, who was never mentioned in his father's
will. James's will was prepared prior to the birth of this child,
but South Carolina law provides that if a will is prepared before a
child of the decedent is born, the child is presumed to be included
in the will even if not specifically mentioned. A recent paternity
test allegedly confirms that James was the father, but the results
have yet to be admitted in court. The case continues in probate
court.

Lessons learned from James
Brown.

(1) If there is any question as to the legality of a marriage,
affirmative steps should be taken if the intention is to be
married, including perhaps going through the ceremony again.

(2) If the five-year-old boy is James's son, he probably will
be able to take under the will. Even so, it generally is a good
idea to state specifically in the will or trust that the intention
of the testator is to provide for all children, including those
born after the creation of the document. If there is concern about
paternity, the estate plan could require testing to prove a blood
relationship to the decedent.

So-uh, are you experienced (in
managing an estate)?

James (Jimi) Marshall Hendrix died
on 9/18/70 at the age of 27. For the four years prior to his death,
he was regarded as one of the greatest guitarists of all time. He
was also well known for his drug use, which eventually caused his
death. Only age 27 when he died, Jimi likely expected to live for
many more years and he never prepared an estate plan. Therefore,
Jimi died intestate.

Sadly, the legal maneuvers
regarding his estate lasted far longer than he did. For
approximately 20 years after his death, Jimi's estate was managed
by a California attorney, Alan Douglas. Jimi's father, Al Hendrix,
eventually sued and won the right in 1995 to have outright control
over Jimi's music. Al thereupon created multiple trusts and
business entities to manage Jimi's music, image, and
memorabilia.

The real story about Jimi's estate
gets more complex following the death of Al Hendrix in 2002. By
that time, Jimi's estate was worth approximately $80 million, and
Al left the entire fortune to his adopted daughter, Janie. Janie
was the daughter of his second wife, whom he married in 1968. Al
actually cut his other son, Leon (Jimi's brother), out of his
estate plan. Leon sued to overturn the will on the ground that
Janie had manipulated her adoptive father into disinheriting Leon
and Leon's children. Leon also alleged that Janie and a cousin,
Robert Hendrix, were mismanaging the estate and abusing the trust
funds. There was even an allegation that Janie had spent $1.7
million on a credit card and charged it to the estate.

The probate court held that Janie
did not unduly influence Al. Leon was a habitual drug user and
had

[pg. 10]

previously threatened litigation
against Al, and the court found this was reason enough for Al to
change his estate plan to exclude Leon. Still, the judge ruled that
Janie and Robert had in fact mishandled some of the finances of the
main company, Experience Hendrix, and replaced them with an
independent trustee.

Lessons learned from Jimi
Hendrix.

(1) Even young people can die, and it is important that anyone
who has begun to accumulate wealth, even a single person without
children, should have an estate plan. While it is likely that
Jimi's estate was not worth as much at his death as it was later
on, a simple will might have put Al in charge of the estate in the
beginning. Furthermore, Jimi could have used the opportunity to
provide for other relatives or create foundations.

(2) Planning for the right party to be in control of an estate
is incredibly important. It is unlikely that any action Al could
have taken would have prevented his son, Leon, from suing to
overturn Al's will that disinherited Leon. An independent trustee
or co-trustee, however, might have reined in the activities of
Janie and Robert.

Suspicious minds can be useful

Elvis Presley was one of the best
known entertainers in American history. Thirty years after his
death on 8/16/77, people continue to impersonate him, and some
people even believe that he is still alive. While Elvis was a
highly successful entertainer whose estate was valued at almost $5
million at his death, his only assets were Graceland and the
royalties from certain post-1973 recordings. The royalty rights to
more valuable pre-1973 recordings had been sold to RCA Records, and
his right to publicity had been sold to a company called Box Car
Enterprises which was controlled by Elvis's manager, Colonel Tom
Parker. Elvis's father, Vernon Presley, was named as executor of
the estate, but he died in 1979. Elvis's ex-wife, Priscilla
Presley, became the estate's executor on behalf of Elvis's only
living heir, his daughter Lisa Marie.

Some tremendous business errors had
been made along the way during Elvis's life, and his estate also
was hit with a significant estate tax bill. Nevertheless, what
happened next was a success story for the Presleys. Priscilla,
rather than handling the administration of Elvis's estate herself
(as so often seems to be the case when relatives of celebrities
become executors or trustees), turned over the management of the
estate to experts who went out to secure the estate's property.
This professional team was able to reacquire Elvis's right of
publicity and took at least 24 cases of infringement to trial. As
of 2001, the estate was worth more than $75 million and was earning
$15 million annually.

Lessons learned from Elvis
Presley.

(1) The most important lesson learned from the Presley estate
is that of professional estate management. Although professional
management can be expensive, in certain situations (particularly
those involving the handling of unusual assets or dealing with
discord among family members), professional managers can bring more
certainty of loyalty, impartiality, and prudence in
administration.

(2) Professional managers can take the emotion out of estate
administration. If Priscilla had sought to undertake management of
Elvis's estate by herself, or if she had continued to use many of
the insiders that Elvis himself had used, Elvis's legacy might not
have been protected and the estate might not be worth what it is
today.

IRS recovers Robbie's fumble

Joseph Robbie is the poster child
for the importance of proper estate tax planning. Because he failed
to properly plan for estate taxes, the Robbie family was forced to
sell the Miami Dolphins.

Joe Robbie came from a modest
background in South Dakota. A successful trial attorney, Joe
decided in 1965 to purchase an AFL professional football franchise
based in Miami, which after a naming contest became known as the
Miami Dolphins. A few years later, the Dolphins (and every other
AFL team) joined the National Football League as members of the
American Football Conference. Although it was a young franchise,
the Dolphins had the only perfect season in NFL history in 1972 and
won the Super Bowl in 1973 and 1974.

Joe's intention had always been
that his family would continue to own the Dolphins at his death. To
that effect, Joe prepared an estate plan that contemplated
maintaining ownership of the franchise in the family.
Unfortunately, Joe never prepared for the payment of estate
taxes.

Joe died on 1/7/90. His wife was
his sole beneficiary, so no estate tax was due on his death. When
Joe's widow died shortly thereafter, however, the estate tax
assessed against her estate was approximately $47 million. Though
asset rich, the Robbie family was cash poor, necessitating the sale
of the team and stadium to an outside buyer for $138 million. Had
the Robbie family been able to hold on to the Dolphins, it

[pg. 12]

is likely that the franchise would
have been worth much more today.

Lesson learned from Joe
Robbie. It is often said that the estate tax is a
voluntary tax. The Robbie story is a classic example of the
generally avoidable worst consequence of the failure to respect the
taxing authorities. Joe would have done well to treat his estate
plan like football and heed the words of Vince Lombardi, his
contemporary and coach of the Green Bay Packers:

Football is like life, it requires perseverance,
self-denial, hard work, sacrifice, dedication and respect for
authority.

You bet your life

Julius "Groucho" Marx was one of
America's most beloved comedians. He had a long career that spanned
several decades on stage, in movies and in television. Groucho was
known for his ability to ad lib humor, something he did frequently
when he hosted a game show on television calledYou Bet Your
Life.

Unfortunately for Groucho, his
quick wit started to fail him several years before his death as he
sank into dementia. During this time, he was living with Erin
Fleming, a relatively unknown actress with whom Groucho had a
relationship, although she was never his wife. Groucho became very
dependent on Erin near the end of his life, and Erin controlled all
of Groucho's public appearances and access to him.

Eventually, it became obvious that
Groucho was no longer capable of managing his affairs and making
decisions for himself. A nasty court battle ensued between Erin,
who alleged that Groucho wanted her to take care of him, and
Groucho's family, led by his son, Arthur, who argued that Erin had
been abusing her relationship with his father for her personal
benefit and had even threatened Groucho with physical harm. A court
found for the family. When Groucho died, the probate court even
went so far as to order Erin to reimburse the estate $472,000 it
found she had converted.

Lessons learned from
Groucho Marx. Interestingly, an article in the 2/4/87Wall
Street Journal suggested that the lesson to be learned from Groucho
Marx is the importance of planning for disability so that the
disabled person, rather than a court, can decide who should handle
the affairs of that person upon mental disability. In this case,
however, it seemed clear to the court that Erin was abusing her
relationship and stealing from Groucho. Had he signed a power of
attorney naming her as agent, what might she have been able to do
before a court could step in? Also, if Groucho had created a living
trust and named Erin as successor trustee upon his disability,
Erin's actions might have been much more cloaked in secrecy. The
better lessons to learn from Groucho Marx are the following:

(1) Watch the company you (or your clients) keep. The elderly,
especially those with apparent strained relationships with family,
are vulnerable to opportunists.

(2) Documentation is particularly important where there are
tense relationships. If Groucho truly wanted to make sure Erin was
cared for, written documents evidencing that intent might have
avoided the litigation in this case.

[pg. 13]

Money can't buy me love (but it can
attract greedy relatives)

For several decades, Brooke Astor
was prominent in the New York media society pages. She also lived
to age 105, a notable accomplishment. For several years prior to
her death, not including the last two years of her life, Brooke's
fortune and person were managed by her son, Anthony Marshall.
Brooke was only 17 when Anthony was born, which meant that Anthony
was 88 at Brooke's death.

By most accounts, Brooke was not a
very loving mother and had a strange relationship with her son.
According to reports, Anthony seemed to both love and loathe
Brooke. As Brooke advanced in age, Anthony began to oversee her
affairs. He took over direction of her staff and properties, paid
himself an exorbitant amount of money to act as fiduciary, and
invested much of his mother's money in theatrical productions.

Anthony's son, Philip, was the
person who filed suit and successfully had Anthony removed as
Brooke's guardian. Annette de la Renta, the wife of designer Oscar
de la Renta and a friend of Brooke, was appointed as the successor
guardian. Philip's suit was supported by affidavits signed by many
of Brooke's prominent friends, including Annette, Henry Kissinger
and David Rockefeller, as well as members of Brooke's own
staff.

These affidavits reported that
Brooke was being clothed only in a torn nightgown, was sleeping on
a urine-stained couch, and was kept in her room for days on end.
There were also allegations that Anthony discouraged outside
advisors from sending financial records and documents to Brooke,
stating she would not understand them. Philip argued that Anthony
did not want the records to go to Brooke because she would not have
approved of Anthony's selection of investments, especially the
theatrical productions. On 11/27/07 (three months after Brooke's
death), criminal charges were filed against Anthony and attorney
Francis X. Morrissey, Jr., alleging mishandling of Brooke's money
and possible forgery of her signature on amendments to her estate
plan that would give Anthony a bigger share of Brooke's nearly $200
million estate.

Lesson learned from Brooke
Astor. If the evidence supports the allegations, this case
will prove to be another example of financial abuse of the elderly.
Such abuse can come from within or outside the family, but in
virtually all cases there is a similar pattern-a single person has
almost absolute control over an elderly person and that person's
affairs with no real oversight. A system of checks and balances is
crucial to preventing ongoing abuse and mismanagement.

Conclusion

Although most of the lessons
learned from the celebrity estates mentioned in this article are
not new concepts, it is always good to stop and remember the impact
that thoughtful planning can have on the lives of those we serve.
Many of the difficulties in these celebrity estates were due to
human nature and not technical errors. Failing to pay attention to
the impact of "real life" on an estate plan and to endeavor to
mitigate the negative influences of the human players, however, is
the difference between a technically adequate estate plan and a
great estate plan.

PRACTICE NOTES

In virtually all cases of financial
abuse of the elderly, there is a similar pattern-a single person
has almost absolute control over an elderly person and that
person's affairs with no real oversight. A system of checks and
balances is crucial to preventing ongoing abuse and
mismanagement.

2402 US 1, 28 L Ed 2d 554 (S.Ct., 1971). This
decision supported busing of students to reduce de facto
segregation at the schools.

352 AFTR 2d 83-5001, 461 US 574, 76 L Ed 2d
157, 83-1 USTC ¶9366, 1983-2 CB 80 (S.Ct., 1983). Well-known in the
world of tax-exempt organizations, this decision upheld the IRS's
revocation of tax-exempt status for one private school and denial
of such status for another private school, both of which did not
have racially neutral admissions policies.

NOTICE: Emailing an attorney shall not and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the attorney and users of this web site or any other party whatsoever. An attorney-client relationship is ONLY established through a written engagement, and only where doing so would comply with all applicable laws and ethical rules.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: Transmission of information on-line, over email, or through any electronic means can be unstable, unreliable and insecure. You should not send information or facts via e-mail relating to your legal problem or question. If you do not have an existing attorney-client relationship, your e-mail may not be privileged or confidential.

By clicking 'OK' below, you are agreeing to the terms of this web site.

Please fill out the form below and we'll send an email out about this page to a recipient of your choice.

Recipient's Name:Recipient's Email:Your Name:Your Email:Message:Copy: Check here if you would like a copy of the email.